9 ms·

The problem once again is copyright. If copyright hadn't been in the way, there would no DRM, and plenty of neutral services to solve this problem. Right now,

by rickmb 14y ago

The problem once again is copyright. If copyright hadn't been in the way, there would no DRM, and plenty of neutral services to solve this problem. Right now, if you can't even freely share stuff between the living in your own household, you don't really "own" it, and you can forget about a way to pass it on to your heirs. You don't own stuff you merely rent, and you can forget about passing it on.

dfxm12 14y ago
You don't own stuff you merely rent This is the crux of the issue. I don't know if the general public doesn't understand this (because this "indefinite lease" is a relatively new business model), or if they think it is so laughable that when they paid $13 for a "book" on their Kindle, they only really bought a license to lease the book under Amazon's terms, they figured the law will work itself out somehow & "common sense" will prevail... I'm not holding my breath...
- ajross 14y ago
  Or they know and don't care. Buying a trashy novel isn't normally considered a form of estate planning. I know I've purchased books with the expectation of reading them once and then forgetting about them. I've also purchased a few or online readers that in principle I'd like to reread but in practice seemed more fun to have on a device. I'm certainly aware of the licensing issues (though to be honest I wasn't considering the interests of my heirs!) but I did it anyway. Many purchases are disposable, and it seems to me that this is the realm where digital media is aimed right now. If you think about it, this is always the way we've bought some media, like newspapers and magazines.
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    People have traditionally tended to collect music, however, unlike newspapers and magazines. Coming in contact with someone's interesting record collection used to be a memorable event. Piracy has made music less scarce, though, and the mystique of music has lessened because of it.
    - ajross 14y ago
      Actually I deliberately skipped music and movies. These are areas where DRM has tended to work very badly. Basically, people still like to collect music. And those who do do it in archivable form, overwhelmingly so. The "problem" there isn't that they're unknowingly buying in to a bad license regime, it's that they're knowingly evading the license regime entirely.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      A collection can be a collection of references. You don't need the music now to put it on your list of favorites and conversation topics.
      - hessenwolf 14y ago
        Yes - my music collection is entirely in mp3s from various sources, but it is still a good get-to-know you area.
- RexRollman 14y ago
  They don't know, from my personal observations. Sometimes I think that they to be required to label the "buy" button as something else other then buy.
  - slantyyz 14y ago
    Even worse is that Big Media uses the very same misleading words in their advertisements, and that reinforces the consumer misconception of ownership. How many times have you heard the announcer on a tv ad say "Own it on Blu-Ray or DVD now"? So much for truth in advertising.
    - jeremyjh 14y ago
      You own the right to watch that film in the privacy of your own home.
    - wmf 14y ago
      You do own DVDs and Blu-rays. The problem is with the other stuff.
ableal 14y ago
> you merely rent Sadly, that seems to be the actual situation. It is therefore reasonable to demand that the word "buy" not be used to refer to those transactions ...
- Someone 14y ago
  On the other hand, I expect that, under EU consumer law, that single "buy" word has dire consequences (on the ground that, when selling to consumers, the buyer should get what he expects to get, based on what was advertised) I really would like to see that tested in court.
tantalor 14y ago
> The problem once again is copyright. I disagree. There is no difference, with respect to copyright, between a vinyl record of the Beatles and the iTunes equivalent. It's not copyright (which is an agreement between you and Apple Records) that is keeping you from bequeathing the iTunes copy to your heirs, it's the licensing terms (which is an agreement between you and Apple Computer). Don't confuse the two!
- icebraining 14y ago
  No; with the vinyl record, you don't need a license at all, since the first-sale doctrine gives you the right by law. Also, copyright is not an agreement between me and Apple Records. I've never agreed to anything, yet I'm still bound by it. The agreement is between society and/or the state and Apple Records.
  - tantalor 14y ago
    Fine, its not an agreement, but it is a legal relationship between you and the rights-holder. When things go south, you get sued by Apple Records, not indicted by the state.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      To call it a "legal relationship" is even stretching it. Would you say that I have a "legal relationship" with every other person on the planet because if I make up mean stuff about them, they can sue me for defamation?
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    And the first-sale doctrine is a restriction on contracts that is not inherently tied to copyright. We need a digital equivalent to it. Edit: better wording
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Another example i belive is similar was patent "exhaustion" in the apple/samsung case. If apple buys the chips from qualcom, and qualcom has a licensce, samsung can't double-dip and accuse apple of infringing on things they bought from qualcom.
snowwrestler 14y ago
Why would anyone put in years to write a novel if a big printing house could just copy the text and sell it for their own profit, cutting out the author. This would be the world without any copyright at all. This is clearly a problem that needs to be worked on, and people are working on it. But the answer is not the elimination of copyright.
- invisible 14y ago
  There was at least some thought put into this: time contraints. Unfortunately, these have all but disappeared from most copyrighted items indefinitely by means of extensions.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    I would definitely be in favor of reducing copyright duration. But, that would not solve every problem of inheritance. I could "buy" a copy of The Dark Knight on iTunes tomorrow, then die on Friday. Even if the copyright expired in 10 years that would not help me pass it on to someone in my will. Because the problem is so specific though, I would think it could be addressed by a few precedent-setting court cases, or perhaps legislation.
- Frozenlock 14y ago
  You could swap `book' and `author' with `code' and `programmer' and you get the open source model. What about passion? Sense of accomplishment? Perhaps the author could make money on book signing, interviews, or even donations. Writing a good story could open doors to writing a movie scenario... To be honest I don't really care how the authors can get some revenues, nor the programmers. Data must be free, and this is far more important than how someone can make money on it.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    Actually the opposite is true, copyright protection is the legal power behind licenses like the GPL.
  - 14y ago

by rickmb 14y ago

dfxm12 14y ago

You don't own stuff you merely rent This is the crux of the issue. I don't know if the general public doesn't understand this (because this "indefinite lease" is a relatively new business model), or if they think it is so laughable that when they paid $13 for a "book" on their Kindle, they only really bought a license to lease the book under Amazon's terms, they figured the law will work itself out somehow & "common sense" will prevail... I'm not holding my breath...

ajross 14y ago
Or they know and don't care. Buying a trashy novel isn't normally considered a form of estate planning. I know I've purchased books with the expectation of reading them once and then forgetting about them. I've also purchased a few or online readers that in principle I'd like to reread but in practice seemed more fun to have on a device. I'm certainly aware of the licensing issues (though to be honest I wasn't considering the interests of my heirs!) but I did it anyway. Many purchases are disposable, and it seems to me that this is the realm where digital media is aimed right now. If you think about it, this is always the way we've bought some media, like newspapers and magazines.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  People have traditionally tended to collect music, however, unlike newspapers and magazines. Coming in contact with someone's interesting record collection used to be a memorable event. Piracy has made music less scarce, though, and the mystique of music has lessened because of it.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Actually I deliberately skipped music and movies. These are areas where DRM has tended to work very badly. Basically, people still like to collect music. And those who do do it in archivable form, overwhelmingly so. The "problem" there isn't that they're unknowingly buying in to a bad license regime, it's that they're knowingly evading the license regime entirely.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    A collection can be a collection of references. You don't need the music now to put it on your list of favorites and conversation topics.
    - hessenwolf 14y ago
      Yes - my music collection is entirely in mp3s from various sources, but it is still a good get-to-know you area.
RexRollman 14y ago
They don't know, from my personal observations. Sometimes I think that they to be required to label the "buy" button as something else other then buy.
- slantyyz 14y ago
  Even worse is that Big Media uses the very same misleading words in their advertisements, and that reinforces the consumer misconception of ownership. How many times have you heard the announcer on a tv ad say "Own it on Blu-Ray or DVD now"? So much for truth in advertising.
  - jeremyjh 14y ago
    You own the right to watch that film in the privacy of your own home.
  - wmf 14y ago
    You do own DVDs and Blu-rays. The problem is with the other stuff.

ableal 14y ago

> you merely rent Sadly, that seems to be the actual situation. It is therefore reasonable to demand that the word "buy" not be used to refer to those transactions ...

Someone 14y ago
On the other hand, I expect that, under EU consumer law, that single "buy" word has dire consequences (on the ground that, when selling to consumers, the buyer should get what he expects to get, based on what was advertised) I really would like to see that tested in court.

tantalor 14y ago

> The problem once again is copyright. I disagree. There is no difference, with respect to copyright, between a vinyl record of the Beatles and the iTunes equivalent. It's not copyright (which is an agreement between you and Apple Records) that is keeping you from bequeathing the iTunes copy to your heirs, it's the licensing terms (which is an agreement between you and Apple Computer). Don't confuse the two!

icebraining 14y ago
No; with the vinyl record, you don't need a license at all, since the first-sale doctrine gives you the right by law. Also, copyright is not an agreement between me and Apple Records. I've never agreed to anything, yet I'm still bound by it. The agreement is between society and/or the state and Apple Records.
- tantalor 14y ago
  Fine, its not an agreement, but it is a legal relationship between you and the rights-holder. When things go south, you get sued by Apple Records, not indicted by the state.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    To call it a "legal relationship" is even stretching it. Would you say that I have a "legal relationship" with every other person on the planet because if I make up mean stuff about them, they can sue me for defamation?
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  And the first-sale doctrine is a restriction on contracts that is not inherently tied to copyright. We need a digital equivalent to it. Edit: better wording
  - 001sky 14y ago
    Another example i belive is similar was patent "exhaustion" in the apple/samsung case. If apple buys the chips from qualcom, and qualcom has a licensce, samsung can't double-dip and accuse apple of infringing on things they bought from qualcom.

snowwrestler 14y ago

Why would anyone put in years to write a novel if a big printing house could just copy the text and sell it for their own profit, cutting out the author. This would be the world without any copyright at all. This is clearly a problem that needs to be worked on, and people are working on it. But the answer is not the elimination of copyright.

invisible 14y ago
There was at least some thought put into this: time contraints. Unfortunately, these have all but disappeared from most copyrighted items indefinitely by means of extensions.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  I would definitely be in favor of reducing copyright duration. But, that would not solve every problem of inheritance. I could "buy" a copy of The Dark Knight on iTunes tomorrow, then die on Friday. Even if the copyright expired in 10 years that would not help me pass it on to someone in my will. Because the problem is so specific though, I would think it could be addressed by a few precedent-setting court cases, or perhaps legislation.
Frozenlock 14y ago
You could swap `book' and `author' with `code' and `programmer' and you get the open source model. What about passion? Sense of accomplishment? Perhaps the author could make money on book signing, interviews, or even donations. Writing a good story could open doors to writing a movie scenario... To be honest I don't really care how the authors can get some revenues, nor the programmers. Data must be free, and this is far more important than how someone can make money on it.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  Actually the opposite is true, copyright protection is the legal power behind licenses like the GPL.
- 14y ago